Madras High Court
R. Vigneshkumar vs Dr. A. Pradeep on 24 October, 2024
Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.10.2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL
Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023
R. Vigneshkumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Dr. A. Pradeep, I.A.S.,
The Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
2. Velu,
The Inspector of Police,
Thazhambur Police Station,
Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents 1 & 2
PRAYER: This Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act seeking to punish the respondents for the
disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Crl. O.P. No.30533 of
2022 dated 09.12.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.R. Jothimanian
For Respondents : Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 This Contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner / defacto complainant seeking to punish the respondents for the disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Crl. O.P. No.30533 of 2022 dated 09.12.2022.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the defacto complainant and an employee of M/s.Inspirisys Solutions Limited at Kilpauk, Chennai and he lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent on 30.04.2022 with regard to the theft of 14 Laptops by the accused namely Nivenkumar S/o. Rajamani. The said accused is an employee of M/s. Inspirisys Solutions Limited and posted at the site of infrastructure support in Valeo India Private Limited, Navalur. After the receipt of complaint, the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps to register the case, thereby, he made so many representations before the 2nd respondent and thereafter, on 07.07.2022, the 2nd respondent registered a case in Cr. No.187 of 2022 for the offence under Section 381 of IPC. After registration of the FIR, the respondent police have not taken any steps for effective investigation and thereby, this petitioner approached this Court to transfer the 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 investigation from the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent, CBCID Wing, Chengalpattu District through Crl. O.P. No.30533 of 2022. This Court by an order dated 09.12.2022 directed the respondent police to take effective steps, to investigate the case, to recover the stolen laptops and to file final report preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Even after the order was passed by this Court, the respondents have not taken any steps to recover the stolen laptops and the matter is pending before the respondents without any progress for 8 months. The respondents disobeyed the order of this Court and they have not taken any steps to recover the laptops and therefore, they wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court and therefore, they are liable to be punished in accordance with law.
3. The respondents filed status report that on 30.04.2022, the defacto complainant, an employee of M/s. Inspirisys Solutions Limited lodged a complaint and based on the complaint, they have given CSR No.196 of 2022 and thereafter, registered a case in Cr. No.187 of 2022 for the offence under Section 381 of IPC. During the course of 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police seized 4 Laptops and Rs.3,50,000/- under the cover of mahazar, two laptops and Rs.3,00,000/- from the accused Prakash Kumar and 2 laptops and Rs.50,000/- from the third accused Naveena W/o. Niven Kumar. The then investigation officer of the case, had recorded the statements of witnesses and the defacto complainant filed a petition in Crl. O.P. No.30533 of 2022 before this Court seeking direction to transfer the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID Wing and to investigate and file final report. This Court passed an order by holding as follows:-
"If the accused is not co-operating for the investigation, it is always open to the respondent police to move the Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail and proceed further with the matter in the manner known to law. Though there is a named accused, the fact that the stolen laptops are not recovered so far, shows that respondent police is not vigilant and active in investigating this case. Therefore, respondent police is directed to take effective steps to investigate the case to recover the stolen laptops and file final report, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order".
3.1. On receipt of the order, the investigation officer continued the investigation, but could not recover the stolen laptops other than the 4 seized. As the investigation officer was not able to file the final report within the time stipulated by this Court, the defacto complainant filed 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 this contempt petition against the investigation officer for non- compliance of the order of this Court. The investigation officer, in the meanwhile, completed the investigation and filed final report against all the 3 accused namely A1. Niven Kumar, A2 Naveena and A3 Prakash Kumar on 09.06.2023 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruporur and the same was taken on file in S.R. No.1170 of 2023 on 12.06.2023.
3.2. This Court on hearing the contempt petition, expressed its displeasure in the investigation and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kelambakkam Range submitted that the investigation of the case would be given to the new investigation officer and as such passed a proceeding, nominating the present Inspector of Police, T18 Thazhambur Police Station, Crime to take the case and reinvestigate on 16.03.2024. After receipt of the order, the present investigation officer enquired so many witnesses and recorded their statements. Since the laptops were stolen almost 2 years back, the serial numbers furnished by the defacto complainant were of no use to identify them. So, it was requested to provide the Mac ID of the stolen laptops by the defacto complainant, 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 who in turn failed to provide the same. The accsued A3, who is the seller of the stolen laptops sold the laptops through the OLX online app and when he was enquired by the Chennai City Police on another case related to laptop theft, he deleted all the details of the phone used for selling the laptops through OLX and discarded the cellphone. So, the details could not be retrieved from him during the investigation.
3.3. Moreover, the Mac Id was obtained from Valeo India Pvt. Ltd., The Valeo India Pvt. Ltd., officials had given Mac Ids of 30 laptops alleged to be stolen were sent to the Internet Service Providers through E-mail and requested them to provide the details of laptops along with IPDR to locate the stolen laptops. The Internet Service Providers are requested to provide the IPDRs through the email of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pallikaranai Police District and through the email of Thazhambur Police Station on various dates. On multiple requests, the Internet Service Providers had replied that the information sought is not maintained by them and no single Internet service provider has provided the details of the IPDRs. The only means to identify them 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 is through the IPDR and the Internet Service Providers are unable to provide the details required. So, the stolen laptops could not be located and all efforts taken to locate the laptops ended in vain.
3.4. To find the laptops, the bank transactions were studied and found that money was transferred from A3 Prakash's account to A1 Niven Kumar's account. Corresponding bank entries of the 3rd accused was investigated but did not yield any useful information. The money depositors replied that they purchased the accessories from the third accused Prakash and not lenova laptops. One of such depositor of Ritchie Street informed that Prakash used to dismantle the laptops and sold the spare parts in the market to conceal the Mac ID from being caught. In this circumstances, locating the laptops is highly complex and the chances are remote.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that already this Court directed the respondents to conduct proper 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 investigation, to recover the laptops which were stolen by the accused, but they have not taken effective steps and they simply filed final report without recovering the laptops from the accused. Therefore, they wantonly disobeyed the order of this Court and hence they are liabel to be punished. This Court also recorded the displeasure in respect of the investigation conducted by the respondent police, in spite of that, they have not conducted a proper investigation and they failed to recover the laptops. Therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished for their wilful disobedience.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would contend that already they have recovered 4 laptops and the amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. But the petitioner has filed a petition to transfer the case from the file of this respondents to CBCID and thereafter, this Court also passed an order. Based on the order of this Court, the present investigation officer was appointed and he also conducted enquiry and recorded the statements of so many witnesses and the investigation officer was unable to recover the laptops since they were already sold to third parties after dismantling them and the spare 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 parts were separately sold. Moreover, the petitioner also failed to provide the Mac Id of the stolen laptops and the laptops were sold through the OLX online app and thereafter, they conducted elaborate investigation and they got Mac Ids of 30 laptops from Valeo India Pvt. Ltd., and sent to Internet Service Providers through emails and they were unable to locate through IPDR. Therefore, they are unable to trace out the laptops and they have not committed any willful disobedience of the order of this Court and they also took all the efforts, however unable to recover the laptops. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard both sides and perused all the materials available on record.
7. According to the petitioner, this Court already directed the respondents to recover the stolen laptops from the accused and to conduct proper investigation, but the respondents have not taken any steps to recover the laptops and therefore, they wantonly and willfully 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 disobeyed the order of this Court. According to the respondents, they have taken all steps to locate the laptops, but the laptops were already sold after dismantling them. Therefore, they were unable to locate the laptops and the petitioner had also not provided Mac ID, however, the respondent police collected Mac Ids of 30 laptops from the Valeo India Pvt. Ltd., and based on that, they also sent email to the Internet Service Providers requesting them to provide details of laptops along with IPDR to locate the stolen laptops. The Internet Service Providers were unable to provide the details of IPDR. Therefore, they were unable to locate and recover the laptops. Hence, the status report shows that already the investigation officer was changed and a fresh investigation officer was appointed and he recorded the statements of more than 25 witnesses and also he found out that the laptops were sold through OLX online app and the Internet Service Providers had also not provided IPDR details to locate the stolen laptops and hence, it cannot be treated as willful disobedience by the respondent police and the respondent police have also taken serious efforts to locate the stolen laptops and to recover them. Therefore, there is no any willful disobedience by the respondents, 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 thereby, there is no contempt in this case. However, this Court already held that investigation was not conducted properly and the investigation officer has not taken any effective steps to recover the laptops and they have not even arrested the accused after having sufficient records. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the manner known to law, but not through this contempt petition.
8. As far as this contempt petition is concerned, this Court has to see whether the order of the Court has been wantonly and willfully disobeyed or not. Therefore, for non-taking effective steps for the recovery of stolen laptops by the previous investigation officer and if any dereliction of duty by the investigation officer is found, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the manner known to law. There is a difference between the dereliction of duty and the disobedience of the order. As far as this contempt petition is concerned, the Court has to see whether any wilful disobedience by the investigation officer. In this case, after passing of order by this Court, there is no any disobedience of order by the respondent police. If any dereliction of duty in conducting investigation by the respondent police, the petitioner has to take 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 appropriate steps in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations, this contempt petition is dismissed 24.10.2024 index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs To
1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3. The Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Chengalpattu District.
12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 P.DHANABAL,J mjs Contempt Petition No.982 of 2023 24.10.2024 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis